[Updated: 11:28am]
“The driver said the civilian investigation seems like a ‘vigilante’ move that won’t fix anything.”
–From a story on KGW
The Oregonian and KGW have picked up the story about an effort by a local lawyer to work toward a citation against the driver in Tuesday’s collision.
Today’s Oregonian also features a forceful opinion piece from local lawyer Robert Reid.
KGW’s story is titled, Cyclists vow to take law into their own hands, ticket drivers Attorney urges cyclists to issue tickets to drivers (thankfully, they’ve just changed their headline), and it includes a poll that asks, Should civilians be able to write tickets?.
Quoted in the story are lawyer Chris Heaps, Police Bureau spokesman Brian Schmautz, and the driver in Tuesday’s collision.
“Portland Police Bureau defended their actions and said if they investigated every accident, officers wouldn’t have time for anything else.”
–Oregonian reporter Noelle Crombie
Compare KGW’s treatment with the Oregonian.
Posted on their breaking news blog (which means the story is likely to appear in the print version tomorrow) the Oregonian titled their story, Portland lawyer plans to pursue case against driver who struck, injured cyclist in North Portland this week.
Writer Noelle Crombie goes into more depth about the “initiation of violation” process. The story does not include a police perspective but does include several quotes from Heaps including, “We think their [the Police Bureau’s] resources are being misused.”
“When the law is reduced to a set of written suggestions, to be ignored at the whim of public authorities, then none of us is safe.”
–Attorney Robert Reid in an opinion
piece in today’s Oregonian
Also in the Oregonian today is an opinion piece by local criminal attorney Robert Reid titled, Reducing the law to a mere suggestion. If his name sounds familiar, that’s because this is the same Robert Reid who was biking home just after the Interstate fatality and told the Oregonian, “I’m really absolutely fed up with the idea that we have to abdicate our rights in order to have safety on the streets.”
Reid’s piece is a forceful condemnation of how he feels the Multnomah County DA’s office and the Portland police have handled recent bike/car collisions. He writes that they, “have apparently decided that killing cyclists is either justified or it is excusable.”
Reid shares how he felt about the police statements in the media following the fatality on Burnside, “…when one officer stated to the press that there was no negligence or recklessness in young Tracey Sparling’s death, he was more than just incorrect; he was giving voice to the law enforcement community’s view that cyclists’ lives are not worth protecting.”
He ends with, “When the law is reduced to a set of written suggestions, to be ignored at the whim of public authorities, then none of us is safe.”
For more background on the citizen initiation of violations process (which is much more involved than KGW’s simplistic reference to cyclists “writing tickets to drivers” would have you believe) see these past stories:
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
KGW apparently has changed their title to:
Attorney urges cyclists to issue tickets to drivers
oh boy… this is really becoming an \”us vs. them\” battle in the eyes of the \”drivers\” from the looks of the poll on kgw.com
The biggest downside to this \”wait and see\” approach to the citation process (in regards to the two fatalities) is that citizens read this as \”The driver must not have been at fault.\”
I hear it from my coworkers and see it posted about the internets.
In regards to not citing the driver in the latest injury accident on Interstate, I know a lot of folks have made this conjecture before, but it bears repeating: If this had been a bicycle cop who was hit, the treatment the driver received would have probably been very different.
As a citizen, I\’m a supporter of our police force. I feel it is peopled in the majority by well-meaning, well-trained and incredibly brave and talented individuals.
As a cyclist, I\’m starting to feel that the organization that these good folks work within is increasingly attempting to marginalize me. Not only does this degrade my confidence in the police, but it begins to endanger me as this attitude is then picked up and amplified by the motoring public.
Just read Robert Reid\’s piece — extremely well written.
We have to keep this wave going — I hate to hope, for fear of further disappointment, that some justice can be done in Brett and Tracey\’s names, but if we continue to speak out in a consistent and thoughtful manner, who knows, change might actually occur, and the roads might get safer for all users.
Ron
Hi Everyone,
I\’m off to New Mexico in an hour to entertain our cycling brethren in for Bikepalooza and sundry other cycling parties (I know, tough job, but I\’ve pedaled a lot of steep roads to get here) – so I won\’t be back until Monday – but I\’ll try to cover the rally highlights and hope everyone can help us pull off this first rally scheduled for Friday, November 16th. Time?TBA. ( afternoon must be before dark to be as effective – perhaps people can end work week early – it is after all something of a Portland tradition to wrap up a bit early on Friday 😉
1. This Is NOT a critical mass ride. I believe CR\’s have a place in work toward car coexistence/carefree utopia, but this is not one of the tools we plan to use in our Mobility/Cyclist\’s Civil Rights Movement. I support those who do CR\’s, but this movement is shooting for a vibe that the media won\’t mistake for anything but a dignified, sober level of outrage, and grass roots citizen driven with specific outcomes we seek.
These ARE gatherings of as many cyclists and safer streets supporters as we can muster given the short timeline. Building larger and larger gatherings from there. We want to get people who support these goals there by foot, bike, MAX, skateboards. People who drive should come down and support the ideas of a safer Portland.
2. We want this Rally/Ride and Press Conference, the first of as many as needed to help Portland become safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers – because many of us truly believe that a lot of drivers out there want to coexist with cyclists, walkers etc., to be a chance to show that it is not us against them, Car vs Bikes – it is, as Peter Gabriel once said, \”only us\”. We will alert all media to our pllans and give them documents beforehand.
3. We want to invite bike clubs, business owners, bike manufacturers, artists, pedestrians, MADD, OBRA CCC, Clubs from vancouver, etc everyone who feels it their gut that our streets and all of our actions need to improve so that Brett and Tracy, Tim (washington County) and Doyle incidents don\’t keep happening.
3. Purpose of these rallies and rides:
A) Unveil Safer Mobility/Cyclist\’s Bill of Rights/Responsibilities and Demands
B) Correct untruths/mistatements and omissions by police, media outlets that lead public to false conclusions
C) Demand that enforcement of existing laws be enforced. Demand that Kruger be transfered out of traffic division.
D) Demand funding increase for cycling from purposed $25 million to $75 million.
E) Demand education become a priority for all drivers, cyclists, citizens through DMV, BTA, OBRA, PUMP Schools, Workplaces etc.
F) Help cut through some of the double speak, the manouvering and platitudes that policymakers and directors of various organizations feel they have no choice but to engage in.
4. Our theme on posters and banners can voice any aspects of outrage because this is America, but specific messages pointing out the problem and solutions and showing media that we are inclusive and simply want safer streets for all will give us a better chance of getting those messages through to the viewing public. Here\’s one we are stealing, with thanks and permission from Hal at Washington County BTC
“We are family, coworkers, neighbors and friends. Please drive as if you know us… because you do.”
5. How to make this ride NOT a Critical Mass but still have impact? Some ideas include teaming up in groups of ten or less to ride legally to a selected location, converging on City Hall, or McCall Waterfront Park in a type of reverse CM. Holding the Rally/Press conference. It\’s been suggested that we either get parade permits for future rallies so we can pedal in mass over to city hall or in the short term ride/walk single file
the short distance to City Hall. It\’s also be suggested that we simply mass in the park with expressions of solidarity, signs, banners, and a show of cyclists, supporters on foot, hold the rally inviting city hall to speak. From there we\’d disperse in groups of five cyclists/supporters to every corner of downtown, every intersection of the east bank as we could occupy, legally and have all five riders standing outside in a ROW, each holding signs that might read “Neighbor, Friend, Grandpa with the last sign reading “And We Bike”. or \”And We All Want Safer Streets.\” We could take all of these signs, banners and, rather than have the police arresting us for being a snake of 1000 riders we could be a 500 spokes of solidarity at all these intersections.
6. I really do have to go catch this plane, but we want suggestions, ideas, and for everyone who has emailed me wanting to get involved, you can help by getting everyone you know who supports these ideas whether they drive most of the time, walk, ride etc. to come down for this first event. And also know that no movement will ever line up with all of your specific wants, beliefs etc. but we must do something… this is one place to start.
We are massaging a mobility/cyclist\’s civil rights document right now – please send your ideas for it.
All of this is a work in progress – help needed, naysayers stick to the blogs. Let\’s see what sort of traction we can get
Cheers,
Joe Metal Cowboy Kurmaskie
mtcowboy@teleport.com
God forbid we demand protection through the law. This is not anything even remotely \”vigilante\” justice. I
This is NOT taking the law into our own hands.
And regarding that piece of cr*p poll; civilians are NOT writing tickets. They are working THROUGH the system to get justice. The courts issue the citation.
Please call KGW and challenge the wording of that poll. 503-226-5000
Might I note though that Kruger has been conspicuously silent during this latest event. Small progress there.
Down on the food chain, if a cyclist takes a right and runs into a pedestrian…injury or not, I would expect nothing less than a citation for the cyclist. And in the case of a car hitting a pedestrian in the same manner, usually you hear of a citation given also. Something be wrong here!
A few points:
1. I second the sentiment on the Reid piece: Very well-written and right on the mark.
2. I want people to know that, in my interview with KGW, I did nothing to make this an \”us v them\” thing. I talked about the need for increased safety on the roads in order to facilitate cycling and, how the current policy does not protect the safety of cyclists, and how the law was designed for just this type of situation. I can\’t control what soundbites they use, or how they frame the issues. That first headline is particularly disappointing.
3. From the KGW story: \”Officials with the Portland Police Bureau defended their actions and said if they investigated every accident, officers wouldn’t have time for anything else.\” Yeah, that\’s why the Legislature enacted the citizen initiation of complaint law. We know their resources are limited. That doesn\’t mean their policy needs to be that they send multiple officers to target cyclists rolling through stop signs and not investigate crashes that put people in the hospital with broken bones.
4. People are calling this \”vigilantism,\” but that\’s a misunderstanding of the way the law works. Again, I tried to explain this. There is virtually no way to get the necessary information on the person committing the traffic offense unless a police officer has already collected it. So the law is used to cite where a police officer has responded but decided not to cite (because the victim was a cyclist?).
4. Let\’s do an experiment: You go walking through a crosswalk somewhere in Portland and I\’ll come along in my truck and fail to yield to you while you\’re in the crosswalk. I\’ll injure you, maybe break your femur, but not send you to the trauma unit. Will the PPB cite me for failure to yield to a ped in a crosswalk? Either way you answer, it exposes the fact that the PPB\’s policy is poor and does not protect the health and safety of all vulnerable road users in Portland.
Chris (#8), thanks for all your work in this.
Note, that the excuse of limited resources falls flat, however, when they send no fewer than 6 officers to the Ladds circle to hand out stop sign citations to cyclists.
Ron
I just read the story on KGWs website. I would say that it almost feels as though it encouages animosity between motorists and cyclists. I have two thoughts.
I can\’t help but feel the average person who reads the story will directly associate \’civilian\’ with \’cyclist\’. This law enables civilians to \’write\’ tickets. This includes the ability of any civilian, be it cyclist, pedestrian or driver, to write a ticket. This is not a law just for cyclists.
The second misconception if feel many people have, deals with the differences between writing a ticket and issuing a ticket. An officer may both write and issue me a ticket for speeding. When an officer issues me a ticket I am subject to the penalty of the ticket. If, as a civilian I \’write\’ someone a ticket for their traffic violation, all I do is initiate the process and do the leg work. I may be the one writing the ticket, HOWEVER it is the judge that determines if the ticket should be ISSUED.
It seems unfortunate that most people don\’t recognize the difference between writing and issuing a ticket. Especially since this misunderstanding/misconception will further alienate cyclist/motorist relations. This law is something that can be used by and benefit all road users.
Robert Reids article is wonderful, how can we support him and give this more attention?
The second misconception if feel many people have, deals with the differences between writing a ticket and issuing a ticket. An officer may both write and issue me a ticket for speeding. When an officer issues me a ticket I am subject to the penalty of the ticket. If, as a civilian I \’write\’ someone a ticket for their traffic violation, all I do is initiate the process and do the leg work. I may be the one writing the ticket, HOWEVER it is the judge that determines if the ticket should be ISSUED.
I think the misconception is yours. First, we should get terminology straight. A police officer or a civilian under the Oregon law can file a complaint of a traffic violation with the court. The complaint accuses the defendant of having committed a traffic violation. In both cases the court decides whether the defendant committed the violation and, if so, issues a citation. If the court decides that the defendant did not commit the violation, the complaint is dismissed.
Under the Oregon law, there is no legal difference between what the civilian and the police officer do in initiating the citation process. Both file a complaint with the court. In fact, they both use the same form.
If by by the police officer \”issuing a ticket,\” you mean that the police officer is finding that you committed the violation and subjecting you to a fine, you\’re wrong. The officer is merely stating that he or she thinks you did and leaving the matter for the court to decide.
KGW did a news blurb on this topic last night. They also showed a video clip where they set up a camera at the intersection of Interstate & Greeley and within the FIRST FIVE minutes of setting the camera up, captured a driver circumventing the barricades to turn right onto Greeley. A biker is seen traveling down the bikepath on Interstate about 1/2 second after the car bypassed the barricades.
Might Robert Reids be willing to speak at a possible demonstration? Some of us have preliminary organizing plans in the works. Metal Cowboy (see above) and some other bike community advocates/activists met last night. We discussed the concept of a possible demonstration: strategies, tactics, key objectives, etc. (more info. to come). Perhaps Mr. Reids could assist with establishing key messages/talking points to support the possible upcoming assembly/group action?
What a strong, eloquent statement he made in today\’s Oregonian. This a great example of the sort of spokesperson and leadership that we need….I\’m excited to see more like this from various fronts! Keep it up, eveyone, and keep moving forward.
Bravo to Reid. Well done, now how can we hold our officials accountable to what is so clearly (?) the truth.
This is kind of an aside, but this morning on my commute in, I watched the cyclist in front of me, a middle aged gent on a hybrid, first run the light I stopped for, and two intersections later run a stop sign and cut off an approaching left turning motorist who was next in line, for which I got yelled at by the motorist for not obeying the law.
From the Oregonian news piece:
\”What we would like to see ultimately is a fairly simple change to Portland police policy, which would amount to investigate it if somebody is hurt\” and not just when someone lands in a trauma unit.
As a point of reference, this is Beaverton\’s policy. There is no reason Portland cannot do the same.
Burr, you wisely underscore a critical point: in order to further prevent \’us vs. them\’ messaging and mentalities, we\’ve all got to proactively think and talk about educating EVERYONE about shared road safety and respect, not just drivers. I, too, have been the recipient of drivers\’ frustrations when other cyclists ride dangerously or discourteously, whereas I stop at lights, refrain from riding in between lanes (claiming one for myself), etc.
Jeremy Keuren, of Mayor Potter\’s office, tells me, \”it\’s physically impossible to implement [the suggestion that whenever there is a collision involving a car, bicyclist, and/or a pedestrian (any two), and the police are called, an investigation is made, unless all parties involved are alive and conscious and explicitly waive investigation]. We don\’t have enough officers in the entire police bureau to investigate the literally hundreds of collisions police respond to each month under the criteria you describe (a single investigation takes many hours to complete and many hours to prepare for in court).\”
[Sorry, that\’s Jeremy *Van* Keuren.]
Dare I say that Robert Reid is an idiot with a law degree? It\’s all well and good that he writes in terms of the law, but in doing so he ignores reality, thus luring cyclists into a false sense of security.
When it comes to bicycles sharing the road, what the eyes of the law see and what the eyes of a truck driver see are two different things, and never the twain shall meet. Despite their good intentions, all the legislation, all the laws, all the enforcement, and all the punitive measures directed at truck drivers in the hopes of preventing blind-side accidents involving cyclists will do next to nothing in accomplishing that goal.
A larger reality than the law is at work, here, and that reality is dominated by physics, geometry, and specific engineering limitations that the law does not address. Until these are accounted for, laws only provide a means for us to express our outrage and indignation when things go horrendously awry.
If Reid had spent as much time behind the wheel of a big rig as he did in law school, he\’d understand that the blind side of a truck is called the blind side for a good reason; the driver\’s vision on that side is severely limited. Until better engineering makes it possible for truck drivers to do what is currently impossible, cyclists would do well to cede some of their legal rights in exchange for staying alive.
One small point, Jonathan: the motorist interviewed in the KGW article is NOT the motorist involved in the collision, but just a random driver.
Although I think we all would love to hear from that person!
Lisa #19,
I find Jeremy\’s contention that there are \”literally hundreds of collisions police respond to each month under the criteria you describe\” very dubious.
I presume the criteria you described to him was the same in your post: car on bike/ped collisions and bike on ped collisions. There cannot possibly be hundreds of these a month. I submit Jeremy has no facts and is working off his cuff.
Yep.
I\’d love to see those stats. If there are indeed so many, might those involved comprise a class for a class action lawsuit against the city, for failure to enforce traffic laws? But maybe you\’re not allowed to sue the city, I guess
But maybe you\’re not allowed to sue the city, I guess
Sure you are. The City just behaves as if it\’s got immunity.
Sort of related, Bob Mionske, who writes the \’Legally Speaking\’ column for Velonews, addresses several recent cycling deaths and the lack of charges against the driver, including Tracy, in his latest article.
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13637.0.html
I was actually asked, in a radio interview with KXL today: \”It is really fair to say that motorists are always at fault?\”
WTF?!
If the police lack the resources to perform an actual investigation, the PPB should clearly state to the media that they have NOT performed an investigation and that they will refrain from speculating on who was to blame. The fact is that Lt. Kruger and other police spokesmen publicly stated that the cyclists were at fault. They should also avoid stating their flawed interpretation of the law.
Phil Hanson, #21, where from Reid\’s commentary in the O are you dragging the implication that he disregards the physical differential and attendant potential for danger between cars and motor vehicles? Enabling an environment where cars and bikes can both safely exist has to start somewhere.
Recognition on the part of both riders and drivers that each has a legitimate in the overall transportation infrastructure on streets and roads is essential. Reid seems to illuminate and express this point better than I may ever be able to.
What your emphasis on cyclist/bike vulnerability relative to motor vehicles seems to suggest, is that cyclists should disregard rules of the road designed to enable flow of traffic that includes them, more or less as some vaguely defined form of defense evasion strategy. That\’s impractical and ridiculous.
Defensive riding and driving is of course essential, but neither riders or drivers doing so can be reasonably expected to unfailingly do so when infrastructure and laws are not there to support defensive driving. Street and road infrastructure will have to be better designed to safely accommodate both bikes and cars together, and I see no reason why this can\’t be done.
If something like an iPhone can be created, surely devices that would enable truck drivers to see 360 degrees around their vehicles. Vehicle vid cams and proximity alarms already exist, and maybe wider use of those devices should be explored as an effort towards reducing collisions.
I\’ve got a feeling that the idea of citizens issuing citations is going to be a weak tool in actual 1-to-1 situations, but raising the prospect of people desperate to resort to such means in the face of police inertness may have the effect of waking up some of the sleepy heads out there.
Videos From KGW\’s Newscast:
Dangerous crossing targeted after bike crashes
Cyclists take law into their hands, write tickets
Cyclists: calm down
I feel obligated to post now. I have lived in Portland since 1999. I moved here from Oslo (Norway) – before then I lived in Copenhagen (3 years) and Amsterdam (5 years).
I know a thing or two about cars and bicycles sharing the road. So please, a moment just to say something. You\’re infuriated. When one car hits a cyclist it is, by some, perceived as though all cars hit that cyclist. Most drivers in Portland are pretty amazing. I say that because the longer I ride, the nicer and more courteous the drivers seem. Perhaps with the growing number of cyclists on the road in this town, drivers are becoming even more comfortable sharing the road.
Sadly, with more cyclists on the road there will be the inevitable – more cyclists involved in \”accidents\” – be it their fault or not. Yes, inevitable. Even in the great bike towns of Europe there are still injuries and fatalities. Do not let the photos of fashionable women without helmets lull you into this notion that Europe doesn\’t have problems with cyclists.
Yes, there are bad drivers. Bad cyclists too. But right now we are focusing on the median. Whether you want to admit it or not, the percentage of bad cyclists and the percentage of bad drivers is going to be pretty much identical. This is a personality issue, not a transportation mode issue.
That is the first thing I hope Portland\’s bike community will recognize, because until you do, you will get nowhere. And by recognizing it is a personality issue, you are then acknowledging that cyclists and drivers share 50/50 responsibility. I agree, drivers could use more education. So could cyclists. It makes you think.
Two of the \”accidents\” occurred at the same spot. Both of those \”accidents\”, along with Tracey Sparling\’s \”accident\”, all occurred via the exact same way: a right hook.
What do we have here? We have bad city engineering. We have streets laid out the wrong way which create incidents with huge media exposure that ruffles the feathers and creates fertile ground for a \”car vs bike\” war of words. We saw the same thing in Denmark roughly ten years ago. And you know how we got out of that? We realized a few things:
Stop blaming cars. You\’re only making the situation worse. Look at the KGW poll, look at any poll. Talk with your co-workers (who drive), or your family (if they drive). To insinuate drivers don\’t care about hitting cyclists and don\’t care about our well being is one of the most insulting things you could say – and then you turn around and demand their support and respect?
Cyclists on here speak negatively of drivers every day on this website, yet when a driver says something negative about a cyclist it is met with disbelief and outrage. \”But we\’re cyclists, how could you not shower us with your respect?\”
The media (and yes, even this very website) is helping to promote a bike vs car culture in Portland, OR. Don\’t buy into it. You\’re better than that. Drivers and cyclists both cry tears, bleed red and have big hearts. Don\’t let a poll or a website tell you otherwise. This is a city planning and street engineering problem that the media uses to coax a hot story from.
No driver wants to hit you, just as no cyclist wants to hit a pedestrian. This is not about bad drivers. It is about drivers put in bad predicaments because of bad city planning. It is about tight corners and forced turns that don\’t allow the proper viewing angles to safely maneuver.
I don\’t want to sound like I\’m berating you, but we have seen these issues arise in Europe countless times. Good city planning creates the fertile ground needed for peaceful co-existence between drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Ride safely.
I note that the KGW web site has multiple car and truck ads prominently displayed and the video clip on cyclist safety is preceded by a video advert for Ford.
How can you expect the media to be \’unbiased\’ when a huge portion of their revenue is derived from car and truck advertising?!?!?!
🙁
Sondre (#31),
Well said!
Sondre, I think your tone is condescending and many of your statements are inaccurate.
Stop blaming cars? Cars are inanimate objects – no one is blaming them.
No driver wants to hit you? Maybe you didn\’t hear about the guy on SE Clinton who used his car as a weapon and intentionally tried — and succeeded — in hitting a cyclist.
Calm down? People are dying on the streets of Portland because other people cannot be bothered to exercise the due care required by the law. That\’s cause for alarm if anything is.
These deaths are not inevitable, they are totally preventable. To suggest otherwise is to dishonor those who have died and those who are working hard to improve the situation. Your willingness to accept the deaths of law-abiding citizens because others can\’t be bothered to pay attention DISGUSTS ME.
You\’re wrong. This *is* about bad drivers.
Sondre, I agree with much of what you said. It is indeed important not to speak in absolutes. Time and time again, many of us have reminded each other (and by each other, I mean fellow human beings – not cyclists, not motorists, but human beings) that it comes down to the behavior of the individual. There are indeed many steps that need to be taken to drastically reduce unsafe behavior on our city\’s streets. Education is one fine way to go, and we\’ve got lots of angles from which to initiate it – things like pedestrian and bicycle safety offerings in our elementary schools, re-tailoring the currently inadequate drivers\’ license exam into a real road safety reinforcing process, and of course independent offerings through community organizations, bike shops, and so on. These only take collaboration and a little bit of prodding to get going. People have already talked about it, now the ball just needs to get rolling.
The enforcement issue, however, is a point on which we *can\’t* merely calm down. That\’s not to say hurling feces and letting loose with long strings of expletives is the right approach, but it certainly shouldn\’t be a meek affair. What needs to be done here is what folks like Jonathan Elly, Metal Cowboy, and others have been repeatedly expressing over the past few days: bringing Portland together and saying that Portland won\’t tolerate biased or otherwise inconsistent enforcement of our traffic laws. And once again, though I\’m sure this is already sounding like old hat as I\’ve been saying it so much of late, this has to be across the board: not just, \”penalize these motorists taking down our own!\”, but to target all those who trivialize the safety, well-being, and conscience of others through unsafe behavior, whether that behavior consist of a motorist failing to yield the right of way or a cyclist blowing through a stop sign. No one traveling from point A to point B should have to do it in fear, and no one endangering the safety of others for the sake of saving a little time should be tolerated. The penalties have to be very real for all those who do not already understand or accept that their actions have very serious ramifications, and the poor choice of selective obedience must be met with very real consequence, not the equally poor choice of selective enforcement we\’ve consistently seen from the PPB.
(Misplaced a comma there. Jonathan and Elly are quite obviously two separate people, not some composite savior of transportation. Although…)
Also note today\’s discussion on the Shift list indicating that the boys in blue were conducting yet another stop sign sting against cyclists this morning at SE 23rd and Salmon.
I\’m with AO.
Sondre, your paternal patter is the worst kind of insidious victim blaming.
You\’re right up with there with Krueger to insinuate that the two recent homicides (yes, let\’s call them what they were) in Portland were anything other than the result of lazy and negligant driving.
If you don\’t stand for something, you\’ll fall for anything.
Have a nice trip.
Regarding the comments of Sondre.
First of all, this is PORTLAND!
Not Europe, not Denmark, not anywhere but Portland.
She eludes to the fact that what is going on is inevitable, we should just accept it, and move on.
In Portland we do not lay down in a bike lane, or a coffin for that matter, and accept death, or the great possibility of such.
We have a growing cycling population, which does not mean we have to accept the inevitable at all. It means we have to change the infrastructure, and the enforcement policies, in order to grow with the cycling population.
When your baby grows, and the diapers are filling up more, what do you do?
Do you stretch the diaper tighter around it\’s bottom, hoping the shit doesn\’t squeeze out?
No, you go out, and buy a bigger size. One that fits.
After realizing that this seems to be the idea of her post, it makes me hope to hell that our cities push to become more European in our cycling ways does not also include suicide booths next to the bike boxes.
Now , in reference to the statements by Phil Hanson (aka Pedalphile):
Driving a \”Big Rig\” in the City of Portland should, and when we are done, will, require a greater amount of responsibility, not more leniency.
The blind spot, while obviously is there, is no more an excuse than talking on the phone while driving. To see inside the blind spot, you simply need to move your body, changing the angle at which you are looking into your mirror. This, combined with proper mirrors ie: more than on most trucks on our roads, narrows the blind spot down to a minimum, or \”can\” cancel it out entirely.
To think other wise is, well, add your own expletive here, as I am trying to tone down the level of my turrets.
Hmmm, another post by me has not shown up, sadly…
I even agreed with myself this time…
a.O, NIK, Donald,
Sam Adams has compiled a list of high risk intersections not high risk drivers, because the problem is not the drivers, it is the poorly laid out road system that the drivers have to maneuver through.
It\’s upsetting to see so many in the cycling community taking the wrong approach and exacerbating this problem. Look back to what happened in Denmark ten years ago and you\’ll probably be in awe of the similarities created great bike/car tension, and how different their solution was to what is being talked about on this forum. Everyone here is so ready to toss insults and fight fire with fire. That won\’t work. The people with the greatest ability to increase safety on the streets are city planners. Do not waste your time trying to put the blame on those who feel most satisfying to blame – the drivers. Instead, put the blame on and hold accountable those who can actually make a difference – the ones building unsafe streets and intersections.
Without safe streets and intersections, you will never have safe car/bike co-existence. Of this dilemma, that is the jugular.
Sondre,
The problem is the drivers.
If they could follow the rules of the road, and yield the right of way.
The problem is also many other things, but in the recent tragedies, the problem has been the drivers.
It would be great to blame the whole road system, wouldn\’t it?
I guess we might as well, as the Portland Police are not holding the drivers responsible.
I wish my earlier comment would show up here, as it disappeared and I do not know how to recreate it…
Once again, WE ARE NOT IN DENMARK!
We are not going to hide behind a bad system of roads, we are going to make them better, and at the same time hold responsible people who do not use the system properly!
Bikes, \”big rigs\”, cars, and pedestrians!
Your comments have my blood boiling by the way. I have to turn off my computer now, before I have a heart attack.
Sondre #31,
I disagree with most of your statements, which seem mostly based on conjecture and false pretense.
First, I must say that most folks here have been very balanced in their comments and have been directing most of their frustration and disbelief towards our law enforcement community and the elected officials who supervise them, not towards the motorist population at large. Many of us – including myself – are both motorist and cyclist, so we are fully aware that this is not about bad drivers vs. good cyclists. This is about all road users sharing the road in a respectful, responsible and courteous manner.
This is also about the use of double standards and what many consider irresponsible behavior by some elements in our police force. This is about police officers sending the wrong message to the public that some traffic laws are not being enforced in this city. I find this plenty of reason to be concerned or infuriated about.
Second, this is NOT about poor city planning. Yes, it\’s great that Sam Adams and the folks at PDOT step up to the plate and do their part to remediate the most dangerous intersections and use the opportunity to fast-track further improvements to our existing bike infrastructure. But this doesn\’t mean that Portland streets and intersections are inherently unsafe for cyclists. I lived in Belgium for over 30 years before I moved to Portland (in \’99), so per your rationale I know a thing or two about cars and bicycles sharing the road as well. I have ridden my bike all over Europe and I don\’t think that inner-city streets and bike infrastructure in European cities are that much superior over what we have in Portland (the one thing that is most missing here are streets that are closed or limited access for motorized or heavy-weight traffic).
What I do know is substantially different in my home country and many other countries in Europe is that the government (with the full support of the police, media, schools, and the business community) is making much bigger efforts to educate and create awareness about traffic safety, both with motorists and cyclists. It is reflected in anything from very thorough driver exams to perpetual, highly-visible ad campaigns you see on TV and along the roads.
Another thing that is very different in most European countries is the law enforcement policies with regards to traffic violations that endanger the lives of vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians alike). Having the recent string of crashes being handled in Belgium the way they have been handled here, would provoke a national outcry. Maybe because a majority of the population over there are occasional cyclists and therefore identify and realize how vulnerable cyclists are…
And of course, bike/car collisions do still happen all over Europe (nobody here who claimed otherwise), but they are not accepted by the general public or by the police as \”collateral damage\”, the way you seem to suggest that we should start looking at it here.
Finally, I find it surprising that you are alluding that Jonathan is helping to promote a bike vs car culture in Portland, while we all know that this is the type of rhetoric that he has been fighting all along. Maybe you haven\’t been reading his blog long enough to realize how much Jonathan goes out of his way to be fair, objective and balanced in his reporting, something that unfortunately can\’t be said of some reporters in the mainstream media.
It\’s upsetting to see so many in the cycling community taking the wrong approach and exacerbating this problem.
Taking a multi-faceted approach and pushing for consistency in enforcement in addition to education and engineering solutions does not constitute exacerbating the problem. Perhaps you missed the part where I talked about mocking language and flinging poo -the heading under which one could stick easily-misinterpreted or even downright vindictive acts of civil disobedience such as corking- not being a way to engage city officials, PPB officials, and the public at large in a real conversation about increasing safety for all who either use or must cross road infrastructure?
Sondre, oh enlightened one-
Your perception of your own worldly-ness has you thinking in absolutes. There is no silver bullet fix here. Yes, a lot of design changes to our current motor vehicle-based transportation infrastructure would help here and there, but doing this on a broad scale, in even this city alone, is a total pipe dream. Are you aware of the monetary costs associated with this kind of work? To put in terms that you\’ll appreciate, I\’m going to give you three words to ponder for a minute before you respond. You can ask me for more, because there are at least a half dozen. Its just that these all started with the letter \”e\”:
education,
engineering,
enforcement
Simple enough for you?
As an engineer, I can tell you that no amount of brain power is going to change behaviors of people in our society. Take automobiles for example. The billions of dollars in R&D that have been funneled into safety enhancements for passenger cars these past twenty years has done nothing to reduce the motor vehicle death toll rates in our country. All it did was sell more cars and left people with a false sense of security.
Elevated bike ways all over town would be great and all, but…
Sondre, I don\’t disagree that the vast majority of drivers are reasonable people, and the drivers in the northwest are far less aggressive than any other part of the country I have traveled. However, I believe the struggle is part of the process. Reasonable people showing anger brings energy, and it can inspire thought, discussion and hopefully change.
@ Sondre #40
I for one DO hold the city planners responsible, for the substandard design of the bike lanes on which Tracey and Brett died, and for the substandard solutions they are proposing to \’fix\’ the already substandard existing facilities.
I have very little faith in motorists learning to look for through bike traffic to their right when turning right across a bike lane.
I don\’t really see how the bike boxes are going to solve the problem of improperly positioned bike lanes located to the right of right-turning motorists.
However, rather than eliminate all bike specific infrastructure, as has been suggested by some \’vehicular\’ cyclists, I think the solution is to build better bike infrastructure informed by the cardinal principles of vehicular cycling, which are speed positioning and destination positioning.
How do we do this?
Most bike lanes are already located according to the principle of speed positioning, to the right of motor vehicle traffic. There are some locations, such as the segment of the N. Interstate bike lane where Brett was killed, and SW Jefferson west of 14th, which are faster downhill sections. In these areas bike lanes should be eliminated in favor of sharrows or some other treatment.
At intersections with high percentages of right turns across the bike lane, where room is available to do so, such as NW Everett and 16th, a right turn only lane should be provided. This would be possible if the (brand new) curb extension at the SW corner of NW Everett and 16th was eliminated and a few curbside parking spaces were removed. I think the safety of cyclists is more important at locations like this than saving a few steps for pedestrians crossing the street, or the sanctity of curbside parking.
The Burnside and 14th intersection is a clusterf*ck, made all that much worse by the overlaying of the Interstate highway and the higway entrance ramp on top of the local street grid. Right turns should probably just be permanantly banned here, or a RTOL lane should be provided as an alternative.
This all just doesn\’t make sense, plain and simple. I was hit by a car in Beaverton on 5th street in sept of 05. I was very luckily unijured. The driver was at a stop sign and as I was passing \”t-boned\” me. I had slowed and thinking she saw me continued through…as soon as I was in front of the car it went…I was very lucky only to end up with a stiff neck…had cars been coming the other direction it most definitely would have been worse. I landed in the oncoming lane . A police car just happened to be coming down the street about two minutes after the incident…Here\’s my point. The driver was immeadiately issued a failure to yeild citation and ticketed…she had a stop sign I had the right of way…simple as that. Yes she didn\’t mean to, yes it was an accident, yes she probably didn\’t see me, but that doesn\’t mean she isn\’t to blame…
This whole I didn\’t mean to thing or I didn\’t see the bicyclist thing is insanity…So what? you ran them over, they had the right of way, it is your fault…issue the damn citation!
I know that I still need to ride safe and actively avoid getting hit, regradless, when it is not the cyclists fault…why are the drivers simply getting off? Why?
Nice post Sondre. Most of your points are right on target.
Cyclists will always be dependent on the good will of people who drive motor vehicles. In the short term you need them to look out for you when you are sharing the streets. In the long term you need voter support to get changes made, and 99% of voters drive cars.
Our outrage needs to be directed at the 5% of drivers that cause the majority of the problems. The 95% of drivers that are trying to be safe don\’t want the aggressive idiots on the road either. We need to join together to remove the 5%.
The same thing is true regarding the enforcement issues. A car driver who gets t-boned by someone running a red light and ends up in the hospital is not any happier about the PPD\’s investigation/citation policy than a cyclist in the same situation. We need to get the word out to everyone who uses Portland\’s streets that the PPD policy can leave you injured, in the hospital, with no investigation or citation issued to the offending driver.
Attacking all drivers is arrogant, unrealistic, and a very poor strategy for actually getting changes made.
The point of this thread isn\’t to attack motorists, but rather, the PPB enforcement policy and anti-cyclist bias in the PPB.